> Intent shouldn't matter here, if you swindle money from a consumer (as in they don't get what they paid for), consumer protection laws should be written and e

> Intent shouldn't matter here, if you swindle money from a consumer (as in they don't get what they paid for), consumer protection laws should be written and enforced to protect these folks. Yes and no, intent always matters. Did his claim clarify that the juice or whatever it is works only if the person has some belief? Then his intent to defraud can be proven by showing the consumers had true belief (witnesses). Was it poisnous or harmful? Protect these folks? Like you or the law gets to protect people from their own beliefs? Charlatans? So you want to prosecute authenticity of people's beliefs? Ethical? Since when is the law ethical or enforcer of ethics? If you read my original comment, if fraud can be proven then that's that, I have no problem against that. But under what condition did he claim it would work? How many homeopathic medicines can you find at CVS, is that also fraud? Then why not pick on the national chains committing fraud. That's why I say this makes be very uncomfortable because the fact that he is saying some belief lead him to conclude it will cure is what is being challenged,not the mere ineffectiveness of the cure. You can sell a homeopathic or herbal medicine that will cure cancer right now in any state without any legal issues. Being unethical is not a crime and if it is most people are going to prison.